Ladislaus: Yeah, Siri would solve the problem. But really, as I said, Siri was unfortunately an enemy at least materially and I think this "Siri thesis" (like sedeprivationism) needs to go away. It's kind of weird to me that both of those positions are taken seriously but conclavism isn't. It might seem anti-climatic but I'm guessing some kind of conclavism is how Vatican 2 crisis will end, with sedes and conclaves being consolidated into unity or a new election or something. I think that we'll probably be able to achieve this soon. What caused so much divided confusion was the wolves in sheep's clothing (Lefebvre, Thuc) who divided trads further and offered false solutions. Presumably, these people knew better and could have implemented the correct solution to the problem (a conclave) but didn't.
Fr. Saenz y Arriaga tried to organize a run-off cardinal election, but died [suspiciously] before he could. And that would have pretty much been without controversy, because cardinals elect a pope. But after that, now for some reason sedes seem to think it's impossible to elect a pope because there are no cardinals. However, there are writings on what to do to hold an election if all the cardinals died, so I think soon we're going get a handle on things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_SiriDoes Cathinfo really like Siri? Siri was supposedly a friend of Lefebvre but condemned Lefebvre's actions. To me, Lefebvre is a contradiction, but it looks like Siri sided with the Modernists over "Tradition": In a biography of Cardinal Siri, Nicla Buonasorte reports that Siri was a friend of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, but disapproved of what the newspaper report on the book called his schismatic undertakings. Up to the last minute he begged him ("on his knees", the Cardinal wrote) not to break from Rome, but finally accepted that excommunication of the dissident bishop was unavoidable. Buonasorte commented: "In all probability, it is due to Siri that Lefebvre had no significant following in Italy" [8]
Siri did not support sedes: Siri entirely submitted to the authority of the popes and remained in full communion with the Church, refusing to support any sedevacantist organization. One small sedevacantist group, centered in Houston, Texas still claims him to have been the actual pope, despite Siri's own silence as to this claim. This small group, known as "Sirianists", have yet to offer any reasonable explanation[10] for the fact that Siri failed to support the sedevacantist movement, that he recognized John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II as legitimate popes, that despite his conservatism he celebrated the Mass [sic] according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments, and that he signed all of the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council. ... To explain Siri's silence as to what happened in the conclaves, supporters of the Siri Thesis have suggested that Siri was silenced by the conspirators' use of the Seal of the Confessional,[12] a method of silencing prelates suggested in other literature.
Comment: As Siri was a cardinal, I think it's only fair to hold him to a high standard of Catholic integrity, and his failure to clearly break with the novus ordo is culpable guilt which should prevent any sede from recognizing him as having been pope, or anyone elected along his line. Silence is also consent and is no defense. And Siri was not silent, but by his actions was a Modernist, and as stated above sided with the Modernists over Lefebvre.
The only thing I could think of was that as a true cardinal he might have been able to vote for someone to create a pope, but again all of this is such speculation without any evidence. Some say Vacantis Apostolica Sedis would bar him from being excommunicated and still allow him to vote, but I don't believe V.A.S. applies to heretics.
I wonder if we could track down who started these rumors that Siri was pope; I wouldn't be surprised if the Modernists themselves started the whispers and planted that false white smoke in 1958. Someone said the FBI reported Siri was elected pope: aren't conclaves supposed to be secret though, so how'd they get knowledge of it? Also, can this source be trusted or might they have spread disinformation or been misinformed? Can someone else meet Fr. Khoat and try to cross-confirm pope Michael's statements that he is a fraud? If some sedes really think this is a credible theory, is someone willing to go expose it and at least eliminate this question or find a true pope in exile?
Let's get a grip on these positions and theories. We know they can't all be right. Let's start eliminating them systematically.
Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 40457 times)